No, the evidence is overwhelming that he took steroids and human growth hormones, his record should be stricken off the books!

incarnadine

03-09-04, 10:26 PM

It's never been fair.

Whether it's the exclusion of non-whites, or the dead ball, or smaller parks and night games, whatever. Androstenedione might've helped McGwire. Greenies might've helped Maris, plus the extra eight games. Who knows, maybe Ruth "beaned up" with some sort of speed. I'm really not all that concerned one way or the other.

Bond's record is just as fair and unfair as anyone else's, especially since we have no proof that he used anabolics or hGH in 2001.

DaBoys4LifeNYY35

03-09-04, 10:51 PM

Originally posted by incarnadine
Bond's record is just as fair and unfair as anyone else's, especially since we have no proof that he used anabolics or hGH in 2001.

Your whole post is right on, but that's the clincher right there. We can't go back and prove or disprove anything about that year.

(*waiting for DABSY to find this thread*)

NJOBP36

03-09-04, 11:39 PM

Steriods and performance-enhancing drugs are the hardest to equal out. It's pretty easy to correct for different size parks, only whites playing, etc. And though I think he is, it's not a lock that Bonds is using steriods. If he is, then it's not legit but he's been a great player throughout his career.

Irabu's Son

03-09-04, 11:44 PM

it should have an asterisk for every 10 lbs he gained from his rookie year until 2001

Soriambi

03-10-04, 01:47 AM

I voted Yes. While I think that it is likely that he might use/have used a performane enhancer, as long as there is no proof I have to give him credit. Just because someone gets bigger doesn't mean that they're using steroids for sure.

incarnadine

03-10-04, 02:07 AM

Originally posted by Soriambi
Just because someone gets bigger doesn't mean that they're using steroids for sure.

I agree with this wholeheartedly.

I just go nuts listening to sportswriters and others who aren't athletes or coaches (and certainly aren't sport physicians) say that they can tell just by looking at someone whether they've used steroids or not.

Bull****.

Just an average male can get pretty big and ripped by carefully monitoring their diet, getting adequate rest and recovery, and engaging in a serious training program. Take that possibility and multiply it by the otherworldly genetics that elite athletes enjoy. (A once-in-a-generation athlete like Bonds has to be about six standard deviations off the mean, whatever you care to measure.)

As an example, for a few years, I coached a nothing sport (rowing) at a nothing DIII college in New England. Every year, there'd be a walk-on rower who was about as large and shredded as a menacing looking pro, someone who you'd eyeball as having a Bonds or Kapler type body. Not that this always translated into ability (e.g. Bonds vrs. Kapler), but these guys are out there, and aren't impossibly rare. You can find them in even the shallow talent pool I was working with. (And believe me, DIII rowers are not using steroids.)

SanFrANSKY

03-10-04, 02:37 AM

Originally posted by incarnadine

I just go nuts listening to sportswriters and others who aren't athletes or coaches (and certainly aren't sport physicians) say that they can tell just by looking at someone whether they've used steroids or not.

Not to mention all the wannabe doctors on the internet! With all these "experts," why even test? :rolleyes:

The record stands, and that's that.

Soriambi

03-10-04, 02:40 AM

Originally posted by SanFrANSKY

Not to mention all the wannabe doctors on the internet! With all these "experts," why even test? :rolleyes:

The record stands, and that's that.

I do, however, think that if it was ever proven, or if he ever admitted to using them during that season, that there should be an *. As of now though, yes, the record certainly does and should stand.

SuperMario66

03-10-04, 03:12 AM

Originally posted by incarnadine

Just an average male can get pretty big and ripped by carefully monitoring their diet, getting adequate rest and recovery, and engaging in a serious training program.

The average male, with extensive physical training and no performance enhancing drugs can usually gain about 6 lbs of muscle per year. Do with that what you wish. :)

bxny

03-10-04, 04:26 AM

If it's ever proven that a player has taken illegal performance enhancing drugs, regardless of who he is, his records should be stripped and he should be given a lifetime ban from baseball and the HOF.

rightfielder21

03-10-04, 06:42 AM

Until proven guilty, the record stands as is.

ring403

03-10-04, 06:57 AM

Originally posted by rightfielder21
Until proven guilty, the record stands as is.

Agreed. I've never much liked Bonds, but unless there is conclusive proof that he used illegal performance enhancing drugs when he hit 73 HR's, the record should stand.

incarnadine

03-10-04, 08:37 AM

Originally posted by SuperMario66

The average male, with extensive physical training and no performance enhancing drugs can usually gain about 6 lbs of muscle per year. Do with that what you wish. :)

Oh, I agree.

When a player comes into camp in March and tips the scales 30 pounds heavier than in September, claiming "It's all muscle," I don't believe them. Even steroid-using bodybuilders will say that you can't gain that much muscle mass (over any length of time, much less just a winter offseason) without gaining a lot of adipose to go with it.

So unless I see immersion tests of athlete's bodyfat percentage (or caliper skinfold measurements) and weights that say "Trot Nixon gained thirty pounds of ripped, in just five months," I'm not buying it.

If any baseball player can really gain all the lean muscle that they sometimes claim they have in a single offseason, even if they used anabolic steroids to do it, they should become pro-bodybuilders after they retire. Nobody can get that big, that fast, on any drug.

bobby jr

03-10-04, 09:36 AM

Originally posted by rightfielder21
Until proven guilty, the record stands as is.

What more evidence do we need?
1. Tremendous increase in muscle mass in late 30's
2. Tremendous increase in HR power in late 30's. Unprecedented in baseball history for HR totals to increase at such an age.
3. Personal trainer states he furnished Bonds with steroids.
4. Personal trainer states he furnished Bonds with "human growth
hormone" drugs, which would be illegal.
5. Personal trainer says he started giving Bonds the drugs the year he
set the HR record. All statements were made under oath.

The prosecuters decided to just go after the dealers not the users. But for all intents and purposes, there would likely be more than enough evidence to convict Bonds in a court of law.

Verdict: GUILTY, GUILTY, GUILTY!

I not only think Bonds' records should be stricken I think he should be banned from baseball like Pete Rose and not allowed in the Hall of Fame.

Let's face it, he has disgraced the game.

Nome

03-10-04, 09:37 AM

Legit

Andy

Hitman23

03-10-04, 09:48 AM

the Yankees payroll is ruining baseball, so Bonds' 73 home runs are tainted.

;)

KC

03-10-04, 10:38 AM

There is no real proof that Bonds has ever taken steriods. None. I hate Bonds, but the record is his.

Irabu's Son

03-10-04, 10:42 AM

Originally posted by bobby jr

What more evidence do we need?
1. Tremendous increase in muscle mass in late 30's
2. Tremendous increase in HR power in late 30's. Unprecedented in baseball history for HR totals to increase at such an age.
3. Personal trainer states he furnished Bonds with steroids.
4. Personal trainer states he furnished Bonds with "human growth
hormone" drugs, which would be illegal.
5. Personal trainer says he started giving Bonds the drugs the year he
set the HR record. All statements were made under oath.

The prosecuters decided to just go after the dealers not the users. But for all intents and purposes, there would likely be more than enough evidence to convict Bonds in a court of law.

Verdict: GUILTY, GUILTY, GUILTY!

I not only think Bonds' records should be stricken I think he should be banned from baseball like Pete Rose and not allowed in the Hall of Fame.

Let's face it, he has disgraced the game.

Bobby, you took all of my thoughts and wrapped them into one perfect post. Well-thought-out and well-said. Every word of it.

And I'm sorry to say, but anyone else who doesn't agree with his post seems to be turning a blind eye to the situation.

KC

03-10-04, 10:49 AM

Originally posted by Irabu's Son
Bobby, you took all of my thoughts and wrapped them into one perfect post. Well-thought-out and well-said. Every word of it.

And I'm sorry to say, but anyone else who doesn't agree with his post seems to be turning a blind eye to the situation.

Or does not believe circumstantial evidence is enough to take away the home run record.

Bub

03-10-04, 10:50 AM

He took steroids.
It made him much stronger.
How many HRs did all of that account for? Nobody knows. Maybe none. 500-ft. homers would have been 400-ft. homers. The record stands.

Originally posted by Irabu's Son
And I'm sorry to say, but anyone else who doesn't agree with his post seems to be turning a blind eye to the situation. No, we are just giving Barry the right to be innocent until proven guilty. Until then his record stands and I respect it.

YankyDave

03-10-04, 11:58 AM

Apparently Bobby and Irabu's Son live in Spain where you are guilty until proven innocent. I sure am glad I live the the U.S.A.

bobby jr

03-10-04, 12:46 PM

This "innocent until proven guilty" sounds good until you look at the situation closely.

Bond will probably NEVER be found either guilty or innocent in a court of law because the feds already stated they were only going after the drug sellers, not the users. But since there is overwhelming evidence that Bonds did take both steroids and human growth hormone, it is up to MLB to make a determination.

If no decision is made by MLB concerning the legitimacy of Bonds' records, that is a cowards way out, just to let them stand when the evidence verifies that Bonds cheated.

In 1919 the Black Sox threw the World Series then were aquitted in a rigged jury trial. Judge Kenesaw (Mountain) Landis looked at the overwhelming evidence that they did indeed throw the WS and banned them all for life.

The Bonds situation is similar except he doesn't even have the cover of being aquitted by a jury of taking steroids and human growth hormone. I wish Commissioner Selig had the courage that Judge Landis did in 1920.

Soriambi

03-10-04, 12:51 PM

Originally posted by bobby jr
This "innocent until proven guilty" sounds good until you look at the situation closely.

Bond will probably NEVER be found either guilty or innocent in a court of law because the feds already stated they were only going after the drug sellers, not the users. But since there is overwhelming evidence that Bonds did take both steroids and human growth hormone, it is up to MLB to make a determination.

And if it never comes out that he's guilty, then the record stands. I don't see that much evidence that Bonds is guilty, other than that he's gotten bigger and associated with a place that apparently distributed steroids. Again, if you held a gun to my head, I would guess that he has, but since there is no proof, the records have to stand, imo.

Bub

03-10-04, 12:52 PM

Originally posted by Irabu's Son

Why, you think they're gonna test him? Doubtful. MLB is scared of him. No, we'll see how many homers he hits in 2004 and how far they go. If he hits 45 homers at age 39 and a good percentage of them are moonshots then the steroids probably had a minimal effect. If he hits 20 homers and the distances are way down we'll debate this for a long time.

YankyDave

03-10-04, 12:58 PM

Regardless of what may appear to be the case there are two things that are facts: 1) Baseball cannot prove that he juiced then even if they were to now. 2) It is not exactly in the best interest of baseball to go out of their way to taint a record they used as a marketing boom. I will refer anyone who thinks they will/should to Marketing 101, don't piss on your product.

Hitman23

03-10-04, 01:02 PM

Originally posted by bobby jr
This "innocent until proven guilty" sounds good until you look at the situation closely.You don't know all the facts. All you know is what you think you see. You're putting together a bunch of supposed "facts" (but they are nothing more then your opinion) and judging this guy without knowing what actually happened. How do you know how true any of the leaked info is? How do you know the true road Barry took to get so big? You don't know the answer to either of those questions so how can you place judgement? You can have an opinion no doubt, but you can't claim it's reality.

Irabu's Son

03-10-04, 01:06 PM

Originally posted by YankyDave
Apparently Bobby and Irabu's Son live in Spain where you are guilty until proven innocent. I sure am glad I live the the U.S.A.

No, I live in New York. Bobby's info says he lives in Baltimore. But neither of us are naive enough to turn a blind eye to what is going on here. Let me ask you something, please. In all seriousness. <b>Major League Baseball has enough grounds to give him a steroid test right this minute. Why haven't they yet? What are they waiting for?</b> I want to scream this at the top of my lungs. MLB KNOWS he's on steroids. He hasn't tested because MLB fears their golden boy will test positive, which will completely taint the sport and its records.. and will send the world in a frenzied uproar about "what to do now".

Let me pose one more civil question. If he was tested today, and came out positive, what do you suggest his punishment be?

Originally posted by Bub
No, we'll see how many homers he hits in 2004 and how far they go. If he hits 45 homers at age 39 and a good percentage of them are moonshots then the steroids probably had a minimal effect. If he hits 20 homers and the distances are way down we'll debate this for a long time.

If the steroids had "minimal effect", as you say, does that matter? Absolutely not. Steroids are steroids. Cheating is cheating and lying is lying.

I love the NFL's drug policy. Random tests throughout the entire year. Any positive results constitute a fine and suspension, as well as publication of the results.

I love baseball with all of my heart, but man MLB is a complete joke.

Irabu's Son

03-10-04, 01:08 PM

Also, I'd like to know where the 20 or so people are who voted that Bonds' record is tainted (compared to the 13 people who didn't). Sounds to me like the only people who are defending our stand are Bobby Jr and myself. Not that this is a competition, but I'd like to hear other people's thoughts.

sanfranciscojetergirl

03-10-04, 01:29 PM

Originally posted by Irabu's Son

Bobby, you took all of my thoughts and wrapped them into one perfect post. Well-thought-out and well-said. Every word of it.

And I'm sorry to say, but anyone else who doesn't agree with his post seems to be turning a blind eye to the situation.

NO, I am not turning a blind eye to the situation. What you and Bobby are stating is what the press had thrown out to the public. Like it was said in Hitman 23 post, how do you know it true.

Originally posted by Irabu's Son
If the steroids had "minimal effect", as you say, does that matter? If you were 100% certain that he took steroids, and were also 100% certain that it had no effect on the record, would you still want the record stricken? If so, then you have to erase every stat from every ballplayer who took steriods during the time they took them. How are you going to do that?

Irabu's Son

03-10-04, 01:38 PM

Originally posted by Bub
If you were 100% certain that he took steroids, and were also 100% certain that it had no effect on the record, would you still want the record stricken? If so, then you have to erase every stat from every ballplayer who took steriods during the time they took them. How are you going to do that?

Bub, we can't do it. But if he took steroids, how could they not be a factor in the record? I believe all MLB can do right now is test everyone. Right away before this gets any more out of control.

You know whose fault this whole thing is? MLB's, for letting the players' union get completely out of control to where they run the show now.

Bub

03-10-04, 01:48 PM

Originally posted by Irabu's Son

Bub, we can't do it. But if he took steroids, how could they not be a factor in the record? I believe all MLB can do right now is test everyone. Right away before this gets any more out of control.

You know whose fault this whole thing is? MLB's, for letting the players' union get completely out of control to where they run the show now. I agree completely. However, the factor for someone like Bonds could be minimal. As much as I dislike him, Bonds has a one in a million stroke. I wouldn't be surprised if he could have hit 73 homers without the steroids, especially in NL parks with those short porches. He hits balls in the ocean. Maybe without the roids they land in the 10th row. The person more likely to be affected is the one with warning track power who can now place balls 30 feet more in distance. The best proof against Bonds could be his performance this year. If it falls way down it can't be blamed on 1 more year of aging, and it's quite possible that someone may intervene and demand a reason why the record should not be abolished. Until then, we're just speculating.

bobby jr

03-10-04, 02:03 PM

Irabu's Son, your points are well taken.

I don't know how many people can be convinced on this it seems their minds are made up. But so far it is a solid 60%-40% on the poll that Bonds records should not stand. It seems that the silent majority on this issue sees that something is wrong and wants something done about Bonds.

If this is percentage is close to being the percentage of baseball fans everywhere, MLB will feel a lot of pressure to do something.

Hitman23

03-10-04, 02:07 PM

Originally posted by bobby jr
But so far it is a solid 60%-40% on the poll that Bonds records should not stand. It's a poll being given to a group of people who have absolutely nothing to make a judgement on other then what they hear from newspapers and how they think Barry got so big. No actual facts. I can't stress this point enough. If I was the only one who voted his record should stand it still wouldn't change my mind until I see PROOF that he's taken steroids. The outcome of this poll may help you think your opiniuon is a majority, but that's about as far as it goes. It means nothing

YankyDave

03-10-04, 02:10 PM

There's a thing called the Collective Bargaining Agreement (Bobby will remember it as the thing that was supposed to ruin the Yankees and save baseball). The CBA prevents Bonds from being tested just because they want to.

No matter what, testing him now will prove nothing from a few years ago.

Irabu's Son

03-10-04, 02:13 PM

Originally posted by YankyDave
No matter what, testing him now will prove nothing from a few years ago.

I still think that if he tests positive, his results should be tainted. Just because we didn't catch him in the act until a little after he broke the record doesn't mean we didn't catch him in the act. Assuming, of course, we catch him in the act. Get it?

Irabu's Son

03-10-04, 02:13 PM

Originally posted by YankyDave
The CBA prevents Bonds from being tested just because they want to.

Well then when CAN they test? When the players want to??

YankyDave

03-10-04, 03:06 PM

All tests are random. They cannot ever single out a player unless he first tests positive under the random system. He also cannot be outed as the only punishment is that he be put in a treatment program.

Again though, even if he were to test positive now, it proves nothing about before no matter how much sense it makes to any of us.

sanfranciscojetergirl

03-10-04, 05:44 PM

Originally posted by Hitman23
It's a poll being given to a group of people who have absolutely nothing to make a judgement on other then what they hear from newspapers and how they think Barry got so big. No actual facts. I can't stress this point enough. If I was the only one who voted his record should stand it still wouldn't change my mind until I see PROOF that he's taken steroids. The outcome of this poll may help you think your opiniuon is a majority, but that's about as far as it goes. It means nothing

Hitman, I agree. Since I live in San Francisco and have watched Barry play and by the way the man is good player, so my question is this why care if he took steroids or not, if you don't like him why care.

bobby jr

03-10-04, 06:43 PM

This issue is really blowing up! I saw on the news tonight there were congressional hearings on the steroids in baseball issue, and baseball was really racked over the coals for not having a strict steroid testing program. Fehr was told that congress might mandate such testing if baseball doesn't get straightened out soon.

Not only that, Sports Illustrated this week has Bonds on the cover and an article by Tom Verducci which addresses whether asterisks should be put by records. "That asterick would say" Records are in question because of widespread use of anabolic steroids".

In Bonds case I would say the asterick should say "Record cannot be considered valid because of overwhelming evidence of steroid use".

San Fran girl, Bonds is a good player, it is a shame that he almost certainly cheated to achieve higher levels than his natural ability would allow. And that he has lied about it, repeatedly.

YankyDave

03-10-04, 06:56 PM

Anyone want to tell me how many MVP's Bonds has won? Just thought maybe those who think steroids gave him ability should know. I think a far worse thing is when a guy hits in the 20's then gets 50 (ahem, Brady Anderson).....

bobby jr

03-10-04, 08:49 PM

Brady Anderson will be long forgotten in a few years if he isn't already. To equate his accomplishments with Bonds hitting 73 HR's is absurd.
Bonds had great talent but he would have never approached 61 HR's much less 73 without taking steroids and human growth hormones. Not only that but his personal trainer said he furnished him with the drugs!
Stop defending the indefensible, YD. You know darn well that Bonds doesn't deserve that HR record.

Yankee Cowboy

03-10-04, 09:10 PM

Originally posted by sanfranciscojetergirl

so my question is this why care if he took steroids or not, if you don't like him why care.

Does "integrity of the game" mean anything to you

:NY: :NY:

YankyDave

03-10-04, 11:14 PM

Here's eight numbers for you guys. You figure out what they are.

39, 61, 33, 23

49, 73, 46, 45

KC

03-10-04, 11:27 PM

Originally posted by YankyDave
Here's eight numbers for you guys. You figure out what they are.

39, 61, 33, 23

49, 73, 46, 45

Maris/Bonds HRs over 4 consecutive years. Very interesting. So Roger juiced in '61, huh? ;)

Irabu's Son

03-11-04, 07:59 AM

Originally posted by sanfranciscojetergirl

..Since I live in San Francisco and have watched Barry play and by the way the man is good player, so my question is this why care if he took steroids or not, if you don't like him why care.

Originally posted by YankyDave
Here's eight numbers for you guys. You figure out what they are.

39, 61, 33, 23

49, 73, 46, 45

You, Dave, are 100% correct. Maris completely and utterly used roids and HGH in 1961.

:rolleyes:

YankyDave

03-11-04, 10:32 AM

I figured being the son of a fat toad you'd miss my point. Both players had one year jumps on their totals. Why, who knows? I just thought it was interesting.

nyybleachercreature

03-11-04, 10:38 AM

if bonds is tested today, as some are asking for, would it even matter? How long do steroids stay in the body and is Bonds enough of an idiot to keep using steroids with the whole BALCO spotlight on him?

Also, if Im not mistaken, a wrist injury prevented Maris from keeping his HR totals up.

YankyDave

03-11-04, 10:54 AM

Originally posted by nyybleachercreature
Also, if Im not mistaken, a wrist injury prevented Maris from keeping his HR totals up.

More proof he was on the juice!!! ;)

Here's a good site the let you know about the steroids in a person's system: http://www.steroidtips.com/detection.htm

nyybleachercreature

03-11-04, 10:56 AM

thanks...
I cant believe some stay in the body for over a year.. thats incredible.

Monkeyman

03-11-04, 11:48 AM

Originally posted by bobby jr
Brady Anderson will be long forgotten in a few years if he isn't already.

No one will ever break Anderson's record of "Most Ridiculous Sideburns."

But in all seriousness, Bonds would not get caught were he tested today. Not because he's "stopped" using. Because he knows how to not get caught. This guy is a pro. He has chemists backing him up. They know how to mask the stuff. That is, ahem, if he is guilty...

sanfranciscojetergirl

03-11-04, 12:03 PM

Originally posted by Yankee Cowboy

Does "integrity of the game" mean anything to you

:NY: :NY:

Yes it does Yankee Cowboy if he was tested and he was juiced then by all means take the record away but you can make your point until then the record stands.

sanfranciscojetergirl

03-11-04, 12:04 PM

Originally posted by YankyDave
Anyone want to tell me how many MVP's Bonds has won? Just thought maybe those who think steroids gave him ability should know. I think a far worse thing is when a guy hits in the 20's then gets 50 (ahem, Brady Anderson).....

Originally posted by bobby jr
This issue is really blowing up! I saw on the news tonight there were congressional hearings on the steroids in baseball issue, and baseball was really racked over the coals for not having a strict steroid testing program. Fehr was told that congress might mandate such testing if baseball doesn't get straightened out soon.

Not only that, Sports Illustrated this week has Bonds on the cover and an article by Tom Verducci which addresses whether asterisks should be put by records. "That asterick would say" Records are in question because of widespread use of anabolic steroids".

In Bonds case I would say the asterick should say "Record cannot be considered valid because of overwhelming evidence of steroid use".

San Fran girl, Bonds is a good player, it is a shame that he almost certainly cheated to achieve higher levels than his natural ability would allow. And that he has lied about it, repeatedly.

Well Bobby jr, we agree that Bonds is a good player, but are you really sure that he lied.

Monkeyman

03-11-04, 12:13 PM

Originally posted by sanfranciscojetergirl

Well Bobby jr, we agree that Bonds is a good player, but are you really sure that he lied.

More sure than I'm allowed to say on this board.

LoneRedSeat

03-11-04, 12:25 PM

I love Bonds. *Are my speakers hissing?*

Look at the man's career numbers. They are off the charts! Bonds didn't suddenly become a great baseball player -- he's been one since he broke into the majors at 21-years-old. In 13 of his 17 MLB seasons, he's been in the top 3 in OPS. In those 13 seasons, he also ranked in the top 10 in MLB in home runs. He has always hit and always hit with punch. Throw in his speed and his gold glove... there are few in the history of baseball like Bonds.

Look at the man's career numbers. They are off the charts! Bonds didn't suddenly become a great baseball player -- he's been one since he broke into the majors at 21-years-old. In 13 of his 17 MLB seasons, he's been in the top 3 in OPS. In those 13 seasons, he also ranked in the top 10 in MLB in home runs. He has always hit and always hit with punch. Throw in his speed and his gold glove... there are few in the history of baseball like Bonds.

You can't realistically deny that his numbers made a huge jump 3 years ago. This is a guy who had never even hit 50 homers, and then nails 73. So, yes, he was a tremendos hitter for his entire career, but something changed then, and its not changing back.

bobby jr

03-11-04, 12:54 PM

Originally posted by YankyDave
Here's eight numbers for you guys. You figure out what they are.

39, 61, 33, 23

49, 73, 46, 45

Your stats regarding Maris and Bonds are very misleading. They imply that both had one year jumps in HR totals and therefore Bonds should not be suspected of using steroids. This is very weak on the face of it.

Bonds would have hit more than 70 HR's again last year if not for the tremendous number of intentional walks he received. This was not true with Roger Maris. The pitchers know Bonds is hyped up and impossible to pitch to so they repeatedly walk him. This was not true with Roger Maris in 1962 and 1963.

Nice try, but I have just invalidated your theory, YD.

Bub

03-11-04, 01:21 PM

Originally posted by bobby jr
Nice try, but I have just invalidated your theory, YD. No you didn't. Bonds adjusted numbers, eliminating the walks, using homers per at-bat only, give him the following:

2000 - 49
2001 - 73
2002 - 46
2003 - 55

This is based on homering every 6.5 official at-bats in 2001. Bonds homerun efficiency improved 33% from 2000 to 2001; Maris' homerun efficiency improved 27% from 1960 to 1961.

elston32

03-11-04, 01:23 PM

No one ever has requested an asterisk for Ruth's 60 hit playing against a segregated field.
Legal according to then MLB rules.

Despite Frick's call for an asterisk against Maris' 61, it was not because he might have been taking amphetamines ("greenies").
Legal according to then MLB rules.

No one has called for an asterisk against MacGwire's 70, despite the fact that everyone knew he was taking andro.
Legal according to then MLB rules.

No one should call for an asterisk against Bond's 73, even if it is proven that he took steroids or some other performance enhancing drug.
Legal according to then MLB rules.

NOW, however, that all of these situations are/have been addressed by MLB rules, GOING FORWARD any player that breaks these or any other records, while also breaking explicit MLB rules should either have those records "asterisked" or stricken from the books.

Any revisionist approach that selectively singles out those records deemed to have been achieved by cheating (see Barry's 73), by applying current MLB rules would be hypocritical, and dare I say it,
possibly motivated by racial bias.

For more on this possibilty see Ralph Wiley's ESPN column on this topic titled "Steroids or sour grapes?"

Link-- http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=wiley/040304

Lets just get back to playing ball..............

GO :NY:!!!!!!!

bobby jr

03-11-04, 01:58 PM

Originally posted by Bub
No you didn't. Bonds adjusted numbers, eliminating the walks, using homers per at-bat only, give him the following:

2000 - 49
2001 - 73
2002 - 46
2003 - 55

This is based on homering every 6.5 official at-bats in 2001. Bonds homerun efficiency improved 33% from 2000 to 2001; Maris' homerun efficiency improved 27% from 1960 to 1961.

Don't have time to do the calculations, Bub, but I think you might have miscalculated. I heard twice on TV that Bonds would have broken the record again last year if he hadn't been walked so often.

bobby jr

03-11-04, 02:03 PM

Originally posted by elston32
No one ever has requested an asterisk for Ruth's 60 hit playing against a segregated field.
Legal according to then MLB rules.

Despite Frick's call for an asterisk against Maris' 61, it was not because he might have been taking amphetamines ("greenies").
Legal according to then MLB rules.

No one has called for an asterisk against MacGwire's 70, despite the fact that everyone knew he was taking andro.
Legal according to then MLB rules.

No one should call for an asterisk against Bond's 73, even if it is proven that he took steroids or some other performance enhancing drug.
Legal according to then MLB rules.

NOW, however, that all of these situations are/have been addressed by MLB rules, GOING FORWARD any player that breaks these or any other records, while also breaking explicit MLB rules should either have those records "asterisked" or stricken from the books.

Any revisionist approach that selectively singles out those records deemed to have been achieved by cheating (see Barry's 73), by applying current MLB rules would be hypocritical, and dare I say it,
possibly motivated by racial bias.

For more on this possibilty see Ralph Wiley's ESPN column on this topic titled "Steroids or sour grapes?"

Link-- http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=wiley/040304

Lets just get back to playing ball..............

GO :NY:!!!!!!!

Yeah, let's go back to playing ball and letting players cheat by taking steroids and human growth hormone ?!?

Wake up! Congress is now having to get involved in this matter because MLB has not protected the public from this fraud.

As for the complaints about Bonds being racially motivated, this is one of the most absurd statements I have seen on this topic. Do you think because he is black he should be allowed to cheat? I said before that McGwire's records should be stricken too, and he is white.

And there are not even many black pitchers today, how does the fact that there were none when Ruth played invalidate his record? Another ridiculous inference.

LoneRedSeat

03-11-04, 02:07 PM

I think we are all fully aware of your opinion at this point bobbyjr.

elston32

03-11-04, 02:16 PM

Originally posted by bobby jr

Yeah, let's go back to playing ball and letting players cheat by taking steroids and human growth hormone ?!?

Wake up! Congress is now having to get involved in this matter because MLB has not protected the public from this fraud.

As for the complaints about Bonds being racially motivated, this is one of the most absurd statements I have seen on this topic. Do you think because he is black he should be allowed to cheat? I said before that McGwire's records should be stricken too, and he is white.

And there are not even many black pitchers today, how does the fact that there were none when Ruth played invalidate his record? Another ridiculous inference.

My dear BJ, learn how to read, write and use your "grey matter" before attempting to address my post.

Until then....

GO:NY:!!!!!

Bub

03-11-04, 02:23 PM

Originally posted by bobby jr

Don't have time to do the calculations, Bub, but I think you might have miscalculated. I heard twice on TV that Bonds would have broken the record again last year if he hadn't been walked so often. Ok, here's the math. I was off in 2002, but it doesn't matter.

As I told BJ Son of 'er..... Irabu, learn to use your "grey matter" before attempting to address my post.

Instead of using a trite hot button ("race card") and making an ad hominem attack ('so underachieving") read my post and use your brain.

When (if?) you intelligently repond to the substantive issues raised in my post, I will treat you with the same consideration and civility.

Until then...

GO :NY:!!!!

Irabu's Son

03-12-04, 11:36 AM

Originally posted by elston32

As I told BJ Son of 'er..... Irabu, learn to use your "grey matter" before attempting to address my post.

Instead of using a trite hot button ("race card") and making an ad hominem attack ('so underachieving") read my post and use your brain.

When (if?) you intelligently repond to the substantive issues raised in my post, I will treat you with the same consideration and civility.

Until then...

GO :NY:!!!!

If you want to talk intelligence, then please be much more specific in citing ways that I did not "intelligently" respond to your post. This would include not trying to insult my forum handle. Son of what?

What was unintelligent about my posts? And as far as "grey matter" goes... what grey matter? In fact, what the hell are you even <i>talking</i> about?

And what is "an ad hominem"? I am a teacher who considers himself quite educated, lucid, and articulate, but for the life of me, I can't recall ever hearing or seeing that word before. I even looked it up in the dictionary and found nothing remotely close.

So, I implore you, Mr. Elston, please be more specific when using personal attacks on me, so I can at least keep up with the conversation.

elston32

03-12-04, 12:43 PM

Originally posted by Irabu's Son

If you want to talk intelligence, then please be much more specific in citing ways that I did not "intelligently" respond to your post. This would include not trying to insult my forum handle. Son of what?

What was unintelligent about my posts? And as far as "grey matter" goes... what grey matter? In fact, what the hell are you even <i>talking</i> about?

And what is "an ad hominem"? I am a teacher who considers himself quite educated, lucid, and articulate, but for the life of me, I can't recall ever hearing or seeing that word before. I even looked it up in the dictionary and found nothing remotely close.

So, I implore you, Mr. Elston, please be more specific when using personal attacks on me, so I can at least keep up with the conversation.

An intelligent response to my post would include addressing any or all of the substantive points I raised, not just the ONE speculation on racial bias.

Ad Hominem - Latin, "of the man," or as used in English, a specious personal attack.
(See:http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ad%20hominem)

A far as my insulting your forum handle. I didn't. I almost did.

However, I treat others with the SAME level of respect, consideration and civility as others treat me.

I hope that this reply is sufficiently specific, lucid and articulate enough for you, Irabu's Son.

BTW - My handle's is not "Mr. Elston" it's "elston32."

GO :NY:!!!!!

KLJ

03-12-04, 12:51 PM

Originally posted by elston32
For more on this possibilty see Ralph Wiley's ESPN column on this topic titled "Steroids or sour grapes?"
i read that article.. someone trying to use the race card where it has no place... it must be nice for some people to drop the racism bomb whenever they feel like it...

Irabu's Son

03-12-04, 01:06 PM

Originally posted by elston32

An intelligent response to my post would include addressing any or all of the substantive points I raised, not just the ONE speculation on racial bias.

Ad Hominem - Latin, "of the man," or as used in English, a specious personal attack.
(See:http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ad%20hominem)

A far as my insulting your forum handle. I didn't. I almost did.

However, I treat others with the SAME level of respect, consideration and civility as others treat me.

I hope that this reply is sufficiently specific, lucid and articulate enough for you, Irabu's Son.

BTW - My handle's is not "Mr. Elston" it's "elston32."

GO :NY:!!!!!

Thanks, buddy. You're wonderful. I can't (and won't) try to keep up with you in an internet debate. You and all your ad hominems have me blown away.

Irabu's Son

03-12-04, 01:07 PM

Originally posted by KLJ

i read that article.. someone trying to use the race card where it has no place... it must be nice for some people to drop the racism bomb whenever they feel like it...

Agreed. 100%.

elston32

03-12-04, 01:17 PM

Originally posted by KLJ

i read that article.. someone trying to use the race card where it has no place... it must be nice for some people to drop the racism bomb whenever they feel like it...

You KLJ, like Irabu's Son, seem to have an issue on the speculation about racial bias.

Do you have anything to say about the substantive issues raised in my post? I would be interested to see if you had anything thoughtful to say.

If you disagree with the issues, address the issues. And if you disagree with my speculation, persuasively argue why it does not apply.

Don't just use an off-hand remark--- intellectually lazy btw--- to dismissively deride a minor speculation in my post.

Be thoughtful; use your brain.

Until then....

GO :NY:!!!!!

KLJ

03-12-04, 01:20 PM

Originally posted by elston32

You KLJ, like Irabu's Son, seem to have an issue on the speculation about racial bias.

Do you have anything to say about the substantive issues raised in my post? I would be interested to see if you had anything thoughtful to say.

If you disagree with the issues, address the issues. And if you disagree with my speculation, persuasively argue why it does not apply.

Don't just use an off-hand remark--- intellectually lazy btw--- to dismissively deride a minor speculation in my post.

Be thoughtful; use your brain.

Until then....

GO :NY:!!!!!
i have nothing to say about your points... i was only giving my opinion on that article.. that's about as far into this discussion as i want to go...

Irabu's Son

03-12-04, 01:22 PM

Originally posted by KLJ

i have nothing to say about your points... i was only giving my opinion on that article.. that's about as far into this discussion as i want to go...

Good call. No need to get insulted and blindsided with fancy talk.

elston32

03-12-04, 02:47 PM

Originally posted by KLJ

i have nothing to say about your points... i was only giving my opinion on that article.. that's about as far into this discussion as i want to go...

OK.

GO :NY:!!!

elston32

03-12-04, 02:52 PM

Originally posted by Irabu's Son

Good call. No need to get insulted and blindsided with fancy talk.

The funny thing is...

I thought that I was "specific, lucid and articulate," as requested???!!!:lol: :lol: :lol:

GO :NY:!!!!!

Irabu's Son

03-12-04, 05:15 PM

Originally posted by elston32

The funny thing is...

I thought that I was "specific, lucid and articulate," as requested???!!!:lol: :lol: :lol:

GO :NY:!!!!!

Specific, lucid, and articulate does not mean trying to belittle people and impress yourself by using obscure words and Latin. Sorry, man.

That being said, can't you stop? I'll tell you what, I'll stop for you.

JeffWeaverFan

03-12-04, 05:26 PM

I am positive that he took steroids that year. If and when that is proven, there better be an asterisk on his record if it is not taken away completely.

RedGlare

03-12-04, 07:26 PM

Originally posted by Bub
He hits balls in the ocean. Maybe without the roids they land in the 10th row. From what I've heard. The real benefit of roids is that you don't ever get tired, so there is little if any recovery time. Yes Bonds has a great swing, but unlike every other 40 year old who played in years past, Mr Bonds doesn't seem to slow down, or ever talk about how traveling is starting wear on him. He plays SO many games.

flutie22

03-13-04, 01:35 AM

the record should still stand.you cant prove he was on the juice now...as much as i hate bonds, he shouldnt be stricken from the books or given an asterick...hopefully someday someone will break the record legit

elston32

03-13-04, 11:44 AM

Originally posted by Irabu's Son

And what is "an ad hominem"? I am a teacher who considers himself quite educated, lucid, and articulate, but for the life of me, I can't recall ever hearing or seeing that word before. I even looked it up in the dictionary and found nothing remotely close.

So, I implore you, Mr. Elston, please be more specific when using personal attacks on me, so I can at least keep up with the conversation.

I'm not the one who put myself forward as "quite educated," or tried to impress myself by demeaning others.

That was you.

BTW, I'm more than willing to to be civil.

I only wish that you were the same.

GO :NY:!!!!!!

flutie22

03-13-04, 02:24 PM

Originally posted by elston32

I'm not the one who put myself forward as "quite educated," or tried to impress myself by demeaning others.

That was you.

BTW, I'm more than willing to to be civil.

I only wish that you were the same.

GO :NY:!!!!!!

meow...sounds like a catfight is about to be brewing....c'mon fellas this is a baseball message board , not a forum to try and insult someone's intelligence. grow up